Folsom Street Fair, Miller Brewing, Nancy Pelosi: Purposeful Denigration of Christians

Isn't this a nice picture? Look in the bottom left corner. See the sponsor there? That's right, it's Miller Brewing Company. Do you happen to be Christian? Do you happen to partake of Miller's products? Do you like your beliefs being mocked in such a fashion? Or do you give a damn?

I personally don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I DO care when their private proclivities spill out into a public forum and their perversions and agendas are put on display for the world to see.

It's easy to mock Christians and those with Judeo-Christian values.

Why?

Because Christians and those with Judeo-Christian values aren't going to pay a visit to you and slice your head off because they don't like what you say. No--we do things peacefully. Things like boycott. Raise a loud voice in protest. Bring such outrages out of the darkness and expose them for the filth they are. I don't see anyone making a mockery out of islam, do you?

Why do you suppose that is? Because the freakin' islamists get offended from CARTOONS--so these idiots go after the safe shock.

Now, if you lived in San Francisco and you knew this was the weekend this obscenity was going on, what would you do? Would you stay home with the family, maybe rent a few movies and just avoid it? Or would you have to go be titillated by the perversions?

Believe it or not, some people think it's okay to take their children to this thing.


She's an absolutely adorable child, wouldn't you say? Obviously well fed, hair clean, a little bit of dirt, but then it's in the middle of the day and children do get dirty throughout the day. Overall, a pretty well cared for child. Now, take a closer look. How has she been dressed by her parents? A beaded "collar" around her neck. "Goth" clothing. She obviously can't believe what she's seeing by the look in her eyes and her hand over her mouth--classic "OMG" reaction of adults--and perfectly mimicked by this innocent child.

Laura Ingraham has a word for this kind of child abuse. It's called "pornification". This child is being pornified to "accept" what she's seeing as "normal" behavior amongst adults. And yes, it is indeed child abuse. There are many different forms of abuse and this particular form is insidious. Parents expose their children to this under the "guise" of being "open" with their children. Well, frankly, children don't need this exposure. I don't care how "open" parents want to be with their children, this isn't open--it's abuse.

So where does San Fran Nan come into this?

She was asked point blank about the issue. According to this article by KTVU.com:

At her Friday morning press conference, Pelosi was asked about the ad."It's a Constitutional question. It's a religious question. It's about as global a question as you could ask," the House leader said. "I'm a big believer in the First Amendment. I do not believe Christianity has been harmed by the Folsom Street Fair.

Huh. Imagine that.

A poster that mocks DaVinci's Last Supper, replacing the Bread and Wine with sex toys and replaces Jesus and His Disciples with half-naked, leather and bondage clad denizens. A group that villifies Biblical values--BECAUSE THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY CONDEMNS THEIR CHOSEN LIFESTYLE--misses NO chance to attack and mock Biblical values.

But Pelosi doesn't think Christianity has been harmed. THIS is what we have as our SOH, ladies and gentlemen. A bitch who thinks nothing of killing babies on demand with her abortion stance. A bitch who doesn't hesistate to use children to further her political aims. A bitch who claims to be a Christian yet refuses to take a stand for her belief. A bitch who also stands with Code Pink and their ideas that murdering troops is fine. A bitch who wants every single bit of your disposable income to facilitate her grandiose tax plans and socialization of this country. A bitch who espouses child abuse between abortion and allowing this deviancy to admit children.

By now, you may be asking why I keep harping on the children issue at this exploitive, deviant affair. Because of this little tidbit found here at CNSNEWS.com:

The Folsom Street Fair Web site says young people are welcome: "While we don't have any age restrictions at the gates we do inform attendees of the adult oriented nature of our events." The fair organizers say beer and liquor age restrictions are strictly enforced.

Now. Who foots the bill for this? The California taxpayers. Yep, every single one of them AND every person who visits California and stays in a hotel. So, even if you live a normal life and don't want anything to do with this event, if you're a California resident and/or a California visitor, you pay for it. Taking the kids to DisneyLand (another supporter of the GLBT lifestyle with their "gay days") and you stay in a hotel, you pay for it. SeaWorld? You pay for it. Those taxes go to pay for the police and security and for blocking off several blocks of San Francisco so the event can occur.

Again, from CNSNEWS.com:

Concerned Women for America called it "shocking and offensive" that California taxpayers are forced to foot part of the bill for the Folsom Street Fair. The City of San Francisco sanctions the event by shutting down several city blocks and providing police for security.

And, from WorldNetDaily.com News:

A police lieutenant confirmed officers are on the clock during the event, not paid for by the organizers.

The Folsom Street Fair website also lists San Francisco's environment department and its Grants for the Arts –which comes out of the hotel tax fund – as sponsors.

More hypocrisy from the left: Senator Larry Craig (a Republican) has been hung by his toenails for his alleged gay actions in a Minnesota airport. Of course, the loudest screamers are the Democrats. Senator Mark Foley faced the same villification. I'm NOT condoning Craig's or Foley's actions--not by a long shot. However, when it comes to something far worse in their own districts, Democrats praise it. Why do you suppose that is? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOTHING BUT HYPOCRITES, THAT'S WHY. In the same WorldNetDaily and CNSNEWS articles referenced above, you find this:

"Senator Larry Craig was arrested and driven out of the Senate for allegedly soliciting public 'gay' sex, yet during this event the city of San Francisco suspends the law and allows 'gay' men and women to parade the streets fully nude, many having sex - even group orgies - in broad daylight, while taxpayer funded police officers look on and do absolutely nothing."

And this:

The group [Concerned Women of America] wants California's elected officials – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer – to "publicly condemn this unprovoked attack against Christ and His followers.

We see how Pelosi publicly condemned this unprovoked attack and this blatantly homosexual festival.

Personally, I don't drink beer. However, if I did, Miller and it's products would no longer be part of my shopping list. They were asked by Concerned Women of America, the Catholic League and a surprising voice, Stephen Bennett, to pull their sponsorship. Why do I say Stephen Bennett is a surprising voice? Because of this quote from the article at the Concerned Women of America site:

Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual who runs a ministry for those struggling to overcome same-sex attraction disorder, challenged mainstream gay groups to condemn the vile anti-Christian display. "I call upon the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, GLSEN, and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to publicly condemn this blatant mockery of Christians and Christianity by some within their community, and condemn this sick public display of immoral behavior," he said. [Emphasis mine]

More from the article:

"Furthermore, Miller has a record of acceding to requests from various segments of the population that have objected to certain ads: it has bowed to the wishes of Muslims, African-American clergy, lawyers and feminists by pulling ads deemed offensive. Surely it will do the same in this instance: the ad, like the event, is morally depraved. Indeed, it is the kind of ad that only the enemies of Christians would entertain." [Emphasis mine]

But it didn't pull the ad. It continued its sponsorship. Just like Pelosi condoned it. And just like the California politicians DID NOT condemn it.

The hypocrisy of the left is blatantly obvious. The appeasement mentality is blatantly obvious. You're only valuable to the politicians if you are a fringe group insulting Christians.

It's time to stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Go read the articles.

Others posting on this:

Do the RIGHT Thing

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA.

Sphere: Related Content

President Bush's Saturday Radio Address-09/29/2007

Cross posted from Wake Up America.

From the White House website.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.

Today I am signing emergency legislation to fund the Federal government for the next seven weeks. This legislation was necessary because Congress failed in its most basic responsibility: to pass the spending bills that fund the day-to-day operations of the government. There are 12 of these bills this year, and Congress did not complete a single one of them, so Congress had to send me a stop-gap measure before the fiscal year ends this Sunday at midnight.

Congress's failure to pass these 12 spending bills is disappointing, but I do thank the Congress for passing this temporary measure, and for passing it without any new spending, new policies or new projects. It would have been wrong to deny essential government services to the American people while Congress works through its annual spending bills.

I also appreciate the way this bill handles our disagreements over the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Congressional leaders have put forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand this program beyond its original intent. And they know I will veto it. But it is good that they kept the program running while they try to work out a more responsible approach.

Congress now has more time to complete its work on its annual spending bills. Earlier this year congressional leaders promised to show that they could be responsible with the people's money. Unfortunately they seem to have chosen the path of higher spending. They have proposed spending increases that would add an extra $205 billion on top of my Administration's budget request over the next five years. There's only one way to pay for such a large spending increase, and that is to raise taxes on the American people. So it is no surprise that the same Members of Congress who are planning this big increase in Federal spending are also planning the biggest tax increase in American history.

If these members get their way, the tax relief my Administration delivered could be taken away from you. Let me explain what this would mean for an average taxpayer. If you have children, your taxes would rise by $500 for each child. If you're a family of four making $60,000 a year, your taxes would be more than $1,800 higher. If you're a single mother with two children, working to make ends meet, your taxes would go up by more than a $1,000. If you're a small business owner working to meet a payroll, your taxes would increase by almost $4,000. And if Congress allows our tax relief to expire, more than 5 million low-income Americans who currently pay no income taxes would once again have to pay taxes.

These are not the only taxes Congress wants to raise. They're proposing higher taxes on dividends and capital gains. They're proposing higher taxes on cigars and cigarettes. They're proposing to raise taxes on domestic oil and natural gas production. They're proposing new taxes on stock and bond transactions. And they refuse to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. If this tax ban expires, it would open the doors for State and local officials to impose new taxes on your access to the Internet.

At a time when many American families are dealing with rising mortgage rates, college costs, and health care expenses, it is wrong to take even more money out of your paychecks. Washington's elected leaders can do better. By working together, we can keep taxes low, help keep the economy growing, balance the Federal budget, and build on our record of fiscal discipline and greater economic opportunity for all Americans.

Thank you for listening.

END

The Democrats response shows they are not above using children for their political points. LITERALLY.

Earlier in the week, House Democrats brought children to a press conference on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Senate Democrats upped the pressure on Wednesday when they brought a priest, a nun and a rabbi as part of a "people of faith" press conference pressuring Bush to sign the $35 billion expansion of the SCHIP program.

And tomorrow, a 12-year-old boy who receives SCHIP benefits will read the weekly Democratic radio address. The boy, Graeme Frost of Baltimore, who suffered severe brain injuries in a car accident a few years ago, says he may not have survived his injuries and the follow up therapy if he hadn't been receiving the federal health benefits.

Republicans have moaned that Democrats have used children as props during this debate.

“To use an innocent young child as a human shield and misrepresent the position of the president of the United States is, frankly, beyond the pale," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "Republicans strongly support renewing SCHIP but we oppose using money meant for low-income children like Graeme Frost on adults and upper-income children who already have health insurance.”

The President will veto this and then we will have to see if both houses have enough votes to override the veto.

The SCHIP program was always meant to cover children from low income families, not children from families that can afford private healthcare. This proposal would allow those that can afford to insure their children to now enroll them in government funded healthcare which would take away from those children from families that cannot afford it.

********************

There is more, much more, regarding taxes and our fiscally irresponsible Congress.

For instance, Hillary wants to give every new baby $5,000. With an average of 4 million births per year, that comes to somewhere around $20 BILLION dollars per year. Where do you think THAT money is going to come from? Of course, this proposal was presented at the Congressional Black Caucus, making it seem--AT FIRST--as if it were for blacks only (more of her pandering to get votes, of course), when of course she means EVERY newborn. The stated purpose of this "baby bond" would be to "access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home".

What would the cost be if we figured in the illegals already here? A conservative estimate of the number of illegals is 12 million here; divide that in half (just for the sake of figuring here) for women only to 6 million. Six million illegals even having one baby with this proposal would be in the vicinity of $30 BILLION dollars coming out of your and my paychecks.

For anchor babies.

Even using the conservative figure of 6 million total (to include the illegals already here), that's an extra $30 BILLION out of the people's paychecks. You may not be able to pay for your own child's college tuition, but she's damn sure going to make sure you pay for every other child's college tuition.

********************

The Republicans APPEAR to have learned from the 2006 elections. It wasn't a change in the Iraq war people were fed up with--it was Republicans acting like Democrats. It was Republicans spending OUR money as if they had a right to go on a shopping spree at the drop of a hat.

Well, now the Republicans are doing all they can to get back to the values of fiscal conservatism. And the Democrats are PISSED.

TOO DAMN BAD. Get that veto pen warmed up, Mr. Bush. And Mitch McConnell needs to stay relentlessly on these idiots backs--pointing out to the country all the ridiculous earmarks and pork.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 102

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	33:16 Say (O Muhammad to these hypocrites who ask your permission to run away from you): "Flight will not avail you if you flee from death or killing, and then you will enjoy no more than a little while!"
Tafsir	How the Believers were tested, and the Position of the Hypocrites during the Battle of Al-Khandaq

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Islam

Now comes Doudou Diene,Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, complaining to the United Nations Human Rights Council complaining of religious defamation & Islamophobia.

15. Islamophobia is a growing phenomenon and a matter of concern in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001. Ongoing instability in the Middle East at large, particularly in Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along with the global war on terror have contributed to the rise of Islamophobia. In the typical expression of Islamophobia, Muslims are seen as opposed to so-called Western values and often portrayed as enemies and a threat to national values and social cohesion. Ensuing is a discourse that in many cases persuades Muslims living abroad to "assimilate" in local cultures, implicitly or explicitly requesting them to abandon their cultural and religious heritage and even their visibility.

76. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council invite Governments, in the fight against racial and religious hatred, to fully abide by their obligations concerning both freedom of expression and freedom of religion, as prescribed in the pertinent international instruments, and in particular articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in respect of their interrelation and complementarity.

77. In the light of the polarized and confrontational reading of these articles, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall the recommendation made to the Council in his joint report with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/2/3) to promote a more profound reflection on their interpretation. In particular, both Special Rapporteurs encouraged the Human Rights Committee to consider the possibility of adopting complementary standards on the interrelations between freedom of expression, freedom of religion and non-discrimination, in particular by drafting a general comment on article 20.

78. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council invite Member States to adopt approaches in the promotion of dialogue between cultures, civilizations and religions taking into consideration:

(a) The need to provide equal treatment to the combat of all forms of defamation of religions, thus avoiding hierarchization of forms of discrimination, even though their intensity may vary according to history, geography and culture;

(b) The historical and cultural depth of all forms of defamation of religions, and therefore the need to complement legal strategies with an intellectual and ethical strategy relating to the processes, mechanisms and representations which constitute those manifestations over time;

Is it possible to defame Islam? Has it not been infamous for more than 1300 years? How did the population of the Khaibar Oasis react when they detected the approach of Muhammad's army?

When it was morning, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets, and when they saw him (i.e. the Prophet ), they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!"

Evidently Muhammad already had a reputation for brutality, which was neither unintentional nor undeserved.

59:2 He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

What did Allah do to the Bani Anb-Nadir? Does that have some connection with Allah's Word?

8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Perhaps the Battle of Badr was a singularity. Or did Allah make a habit of terrifying Jews?

33:26-27 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

And Muhammad? What is the Prophet's attitude? Surely he must have objected to terrorism!

Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.

I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.

But Muhammad is supposed to be a good example for Muslims to follow; the greatest and best of men.

33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.

Muhammad must have been a humble, gentle and compassionate man, right?

Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

About defamation of religion; where did that originate?

1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).

8:22. Verily! The worst of (moving) living creatures with Allâh are the deaf and the dumb, those who understand not (i.e. the disbelievers).

98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad ()) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

9:30 And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

9:73. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination.

And those jibes about "sons of pigs and monkeys", where does that come from?

5:60. Say (O Muhammad to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allâh: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allâh and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Tâghût (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell­fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world)."

Islamophobia: phobia implies irrational, unfounded fear. In view of 9:29 & 59:2 (cited above) is there any reason to fear Islam? Perhaps the 900 Jewish men and boys slaughtered at Medina? [Bukhari 4.52.280 & Abu Dawud 48.4390] Or the genocide of Hindus at Hindu Kuah? Or the genocide of the Assyrians? Or, more recently, the genocide of the Armenians? And what is the stimulus for Islamic genocide?

8:67 It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

And what of Islamic Supremacism?

Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah's Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

Then there is the little matter of triumphalism.

40:51 Verily, We will indeed make victorious Our Messengers and those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) in this world's life and on the Day when the witnesses will stand forth, (i.e. Day of Resurrection),

Have I, by exposing the execrable doctrines and practices of Islam, by means of its own scripture, tradition & history, defamed Islam? Far from it; I have only exposed the truth. I have not twisted, distorted, mis-interpreted nor mis-translated anything. I have not concealed my sources, giving you hyperlinks to each quotation.

I showed you that Allah commanded conquest and genocide. I showed you that Muhammad practiced what he preached and that he was an arrogant pirate. I showed you that Allah commanded terrorism and Muhammad bragged of it. Follow the links I have provided, read the entire Qur'an & Bukhari's Books of Jihad, Khumus & Military Expedition. Then, if you are intelligent, logical & rational, you will join me in cursing and condemning Islam and demanding its extinction.

Sphere: Related Content

Phony Soldiers & Rush Limbaugh

Cross posted from Wake up America

I waited to post about this because I wanted to be able to see the whole transcript instead of the cherry picked portions the left used to get their readers all up in arms.

The transcript can be found at The Rush Limbaugh website:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?

RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.

CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?

RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.

CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose --

RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER: Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. I'm not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you're wrong.

RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag.

CALLER: I'm not saying that, I'm not saying anything like that.

RUSH: Of course you are.

CALLER: No, I'm not!

RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let's get out of there and let's be done with it. We won it.

RUSH: I'm never going to be able to retire. It's not going to work. You are depressing me.

CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts.

RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can't believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you've heard me say what I'm going to say to you. War is never "plottable" on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it's going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing.

CALLER: That's true.

RUSH: Thank you. So what's happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can't cave in defeat and run out of there and say, "Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam." We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we're just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost.

CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we're going to have to be there to take care of it?

RUSH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can't be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill -- (Laughing) or Mike. I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but --

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.
Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
END TRANSCRIPT

Makes a little more sense with the reference to Jesse Macbeth which we recently showed that he was, indeed, a "phony soldier" and that was the portion that the left, and the Democratic politicians, conveniently left out of their little narratives yesterday. (Although had the context not been provided, I was ready to rip Rush a new one and I still think he could have made it a little clearer that he was referring to the Macbeth's of the anti-war lefts world)

No one claims that there are not soldiers against our actions in Iraq but their numbers do not compare to the active military speaking up in support of the mission, their numbers do not compare to the numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that are in support of the mission and their numbers do not come close to comparing to the veterans that support the troops and their mission.

When the anti-war left can start producing those kinds of numbers, then perhaps they will be given more credibility to their arguments.

VETERANS;

The American Legion:

The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines.

The American Legion's national headquarters is in Indianapolis,Indiana, with additional offices in Washington, DC. In addition to thousands of volunteers serving in leadership and program implementation capacities in local communities to the Legion's standing national commissions and committees, the national organization has a regular full-time staff of about 300 employees.

They represent three million veterans and here are a couple of their statements.

RENO, NV, August 31, 2007, American Legion Reaffirms Support for War on Terror.

Nearly 6,000 delegates unanimously re-affirmed The American Legion’s support for the war on terrorism during the organization’s 89th National Convention in Reno, Nevada.

“We must continue to stand by the president and advocate for adequate funding for our troops that is not contingent on a set date for troop withdrawal,” said National Commander Paul A. Morin. “Our support of Resolution 169 is unwavering.”

Resolution 169 was first passed at The American Legion’s 87th National Convention in Honolulu and re-affirmed last year in Salt Lake City. It resolves that The American Legion urges all Americans and freedom-loving people stand united in their support of the global war on terrorism and united in their support of the troops. It further resolves that national commander of The American Legion disseminate accurate information to ensure the united support of the American people.

The American Legion, which by its own constitution is nonpartisan, urges that the people support both the president who sent the troops to war and Congress, which authorized the action.

Several speakers at The American Legion National Convention pointed out that the current strategy in Iraq appears to be working. “Tired of the indiscriminate violence and turned off by al-Qaeda’s Taliban-like ideology, many sheiks, tribes and local citizens are rejecting al-Qaeda,” said Gen. David Petraeus, who addressed the convention from a videotape produced in Iraq. He added that troops have been aided enormously by “the increasing assistance of everyday Iraqis.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 11, 2007, Legion: Support Surge, Troops, Petraeus.

The National Commander of the nation’s largest veterans organization today called for “much resolve and patience” by Congress and the American people on the war in Iraq after Multi-National Force Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus’s testimony before Congress.

National Commander Marty Conatser voiced The American Legion's continued support for the "surge" in Iraq and the improving security environment.

"Gen. Petraeus forcefully and effectively reported measurable gains to the joint session of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees and his honest and professional assessment reinforced what I had seen in Iraq in the last month," Conatser said.

"General Petraeus's assessment that the military objectives are in large measure being met plus his reasonable proposal for a troop draw down prove the wisdom of the “surge” strategy,” Conatser explained.

He also applauded Gen. Petraeus's view that failure to follow through would be a ‘"rush to failure."’

“I visited Iraq in August and met with troops and Gen. Petraeus,” Conatser said. “There is no doubt in my mind, a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous for the Iraqis and the United States.”

Conatser said the troops he spoke with there said they’ve seen significant change and real improvements in the security environment, echoing what Gen. Petraeus told Congress today.

“The Senate confirmed Gen. Petraeus to change direction in Iraq,” Conatser added. “He’s doing that but change does not happen overnight and his “surge” strategy just became fully implemented in mid-June when the requested reinforcements finally arrived.

“In the broader context, this report to the Congress today demonstrates progress in the global war on terrorism,” the national commander said. “We agree with the Multi-Nation Force Iraq Commander that this will be a long struggle but we support our nation's forces and their leadership for the long haul.”

Two weeks ago, The American Legion unanimously re-affirmed The American Legion’s unwavering support for the war on terrorism during the organization’s 89th National Convention in Reno, Nevada. Resolution 169 also points out that the United States was “suddenly and without provocation, attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001.” It adds, “The global war on terrorism is a just war, aimed at protecting the very foundations of freedom and freedom-loving people everywhere.”

Conatser, a retired sergeant major with the Illinois National Guard, fully supports Resolution 169.

“I am proud that The American Legion passed Resolution 169, which reminds people that supporting the troops also means supporting their mission. Iraq is part of the Global War on Terrorism. I always believed that but after seeing it firsthand, I am more convinced than ever,” he said. “Everything I saw in Iraq last month points to the fact that the “surge” is working.”

The National Commander also addressed recent personal attacks on Iraq’s top military commander.

“For anyone or group to portray Gen. Petraeus as a traitor is outrageous and downright despicable,” Conatser said. “The military leader I met with is an honest, dedicated patriot who is succeeding given the very difficult mission before him. He should be commended not condemned for his 35 years of selfless service to our nation.”

With a membership of 2.7-million wartime veterans, The American Legion was founded in 1919 on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and patriotic youth programs. Legionnaires work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.

Add to that the Gathering of Eagles and Rolling Thunder.

Challenge to the anti-war left: Produce any organization that represents 3 million veterans as we have just produced.

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS;

Vets For Freedom:

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics—namely "the surge" in Iraq. We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain.

Vets for Freedom is the leading voice representing troops and veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Vets for Freedom represent more than 7,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here are there news articles and press releases.

Challenge to the anti-war left: Produce any organization that represents over 7,000 IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN veterans. Veterans that have fought in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

ACTIVE MILITARY;

Appeal for Courage:

Appeal for Courage is a non-partisan, grass-roots effort to communicate to Congress the troops' desire to remain in Iraq until our mission is complete. We feel calls to retreat embolden our enemy and hurt our support within the American public and Iraqi people. We accept no funding from any source, and do not speak for any group or organization other than those military members who have signed the Appeal.

3285 Active Military Members have signed this appeal.

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

Challenge to the anti-war left: Produce 3285 Active Military Members speaking up publicly against the mission.

The far left liberal anti-war, anti-military will jump on one, two or ten, military members that has fought in Iraq and some of them, such as Jesse Macbeth are, indeed, as Rush stated, phony soldiers... others are soldiers that have served and simply disagree with our actions in Iraq and the ones that DID serve deserve the respect of being listened to, but, they receive no more credibility than the thousands that are speaking up in favor of our missions, in Iraq or elsewhere.

When you have 10 or 20 or even a hundred that are telling you one thing and you compare that to thousands that are telling you something else, you must use common sense.

Why would anybody give more credence to hundreds than they would thousands?

It makes no sense at all and yet that is what the anti-war left does on a daily basis.

What the left has done with Rush Limbaugh's comments is exactly what they have done with their use of the soldiers they trumpet the words of.

They deliberately hide the "context".

More from Hot Air, Right Wing News, Take Our Country Back and Captain's Quarters.

Sphere: Related Content